MUHAMMAD YAQUB SHEIKH, DISTRICT ENGINEER, DISTRICT COUNCIL, TOBA TEK
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Provincial Service Tribunal, which had maintained the penalty of recovery of financial loss imposed upon the petitioner following disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner, a municipal engineer, faced disciplinary action after a roof of a waiting hall constructed under his supervision collapsed due to rains. The core legal question concerned the competence of the Provincial Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, and challenges to the merits of the penalty. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the contention regarding the competence of the Provincial Government was not raised before the Service Tribunal and could not be entertained for the first time before the apex court. Furthermore, on the merits, the court noted that the petitioner had been punished after a regular inquiry providing ample opportunity of defense, and no substantial question of law of public importance arose. The key principle laid down is that fresh legal arguments not raised before the subordinate tribunal cannot be entertained for the first time in the Supreme Court, particularly when factual inquiry is required.
- Can a party raise a new factual or legal contention for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not canvassed before the Service Tribunal?
- Whether disciplinary proceedings and recovery of loss can be imposed on a municipal engineer following structural failure after a regular inquiry?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was a member of the Punjab Local Council Service and was posted as municipal engineer in the Municipal Corporation, Multan, between the period from 8-12- 1979 to 24-9-1980. During this period the Corporation constructed a waiting hall near the General Bus Stand at an estimated costs of Rs.3,40,000. The petitioner was incharge of buildings and roads.
Following some heavy rains in Multan a portion of the roof collapsed. The roof was repaired but a few days later it again caved in. An inquiry was held into the repeated collapses of the roof and as a result disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, the Assistant Engineer and Sub-Engineer. Consequent upon the disciplinary proceedings the penalties of reduction in pay and recovery of Rs.1,00,000 which represented the loss caused to the Municipal Corporation were imposed on him. He filed a review petition which was rejected by the Government. He then preferred an appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal which set aside the penalty of reduction in pay but maintained that of recovery of loss. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition two arguments have been raised. In the first instance it is contended that the petitioner was not an employee of the Provincial Government and as such the Provincial Government was not competent to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him. This argument was admittedly not canvassed the Service Tribunal. The question whether the Provincial Government was competent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner could only be resolved after an inquiry. We are not prepared to entertain this argument for the first time in this Court. The second argument relates to the merits of the case. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has been punished after a regular inquiry wherein he was given ample opportunity to defend himself. No substantial question of law of public importance arises in this case. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- ABDUL MAJEED Versus PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER 2010 PLC(CS) 1469
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus SHAMOON KHAN 2010 PLC(CS) 608
- Mrs. RASHIDA ASIF vs Mrs. AASIA GONDAL and others 2010 SCMR 450
- Mrs. RASHIDA ASIF Versus Mrs. AASIA GONDAL 2010 PLC(CS) 357
- SULEMAN ALI HAIDERI Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN 2004 SCMR 354
- BABER GUL Versus SOHAIL AHMAD SHEIKH 2002 PLC(CS) 160